Bob Schmall wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Bob Schmall wrote:


"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Eddie Munster" wrote in message
...
Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect
died.

He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security
guards held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He
couldn't breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered
in
training
courses.

John

That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.

Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That someone
stealing
deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in less
civilized countries?

This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's not
right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal system,
not
execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante
justice we are well down the road to barbarism.

This is realism. He stole.

As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?

He through his own stupidity managed to get himself killed before it got to
trial.

He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
he resisted, and thus risked application of force. When force is applied
then death is a possible outcome. He took the chance, what happened
after
that was on his head.

Nope. What was on his head what the suspected commission of a crime. Since
when do people suspected of a crime lose their right to live?

It is not a matter of "right to live". If the guards had gone after him
with heavy machine guns or something you might have a reasonable point, but
they did not, they caught him, held him down, and he managed to die while
they were doing it. This comes under the heading of "**** happens".

It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught in the
act
into "vigilante justice".

It amazes me that you have so little regard for the rule of law.

I have a high regard for the "rule of law". The "rule of law" does not
require that when one catches a criminal in the act on one's own property
one must let him walk away.

If these guards got a good look at him and three weeks later saw somebody
who they thought looked like him walking down the street and killed that
person, _that_ would be "vigilante justice".

Further, the issue is not that "if someone steals they deserve to die".
You
are confusing injuries sustained as a result of resisting apprehension
with
penalties applied by law. If someone steals and gets caught at it and
gets
hurt or killed while attempting to resist apprehension then that is their
problem.

Nope--it's giving carte blanche to the person apprehending them to use
deadly force.

Nope. If the guards had shot him 40 times I'd be upset about it. They
basically held him down and sat on him. I'm not at all upset about them
doing that.

Suppose the guard had just said "excuse me sir" and the suspect had then
dropped dead of a heart attack, would you be this irate then?

And don't think I'm favoring the perp.

Actually you are. If he knows he can walk away and stay a free man as long
as the police, who are grossly overworked already, don't find him, that
favors him.

If he is judged to be
a thief, then he deserves the punishment--but not until then.

What punishment? Being sat on?

Yes, the guards should have been better trained. But the guy
"knew or should have known" (as various statutes say about various
things) that he was dealing with rent-a-cops.

So he should ask about store security before committing the crime?

That would come under the general heading of "reasonable prudence" for a
criminal. If he doesn't find out what he's up against first then he is not
only a "criminal", he's a "stupid criminal".

"Pardon me, may I see the manager about what could happen if I steal
something?"

Why would one have to ask that to determine that the guards are rent-a-cops
and not real cops? All one has to do is look at the insignia on their
uniforms.

Maybe it didn't occur to him that
lack of training might equate to excessive use of force rather than
inability to overpower him.

Talk about "liberals" letting people off. So lack of training gets the
guard off the hook?

No. Lack of _intent_ lets the guard off the hook. The guy died because the
guard didn't know that doing what he did was likely to kill someone, not
because the guard wanted him dead.

"Excuse me, sir. You, the one under my knee. Are you
aware that I have not been trained in proper restraint techniques? Not
that it matters to me."

If the guard had the suspect under his knee then the information will do the
suspect no good. The suspect should have surrendered before matters got to
that point.

If he wasn't properly trained, why did he use the maneuver?

He used it because he wasn't properly trained. If he had been properly
trained then he would have done something else less likely to kill the
suspect.

The only thing the perp should have known was that stealing is wrong.

Your opinion. The law deals in the actions of the "reasonable man". The
"reasonable man" who is going to commit a crime will want to know a lot
more than that.

Bob

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)